Don’t be too easily convinced that God really wants you to do all sorts of work you needn’t do. Each must do his duty ‘in that state of life to which God has called him.’ Remember that a belief in the virtues of doing for doing’s sake is characteristically feminine, characteristically American, and characteristically modern: so that three veils may divide you from the correct view!
There can be intemperance in work just as in drink. What feels like zeal may be only fidgets or even the flattering of one’s self-importance. As MacDonald says, ‘In holy things may be unholy greed.’ And by doing what ‘one’s station and its duties’ does not demand, one can make oneself less fit for the duties it does demand and so commit some injustice. Just you give Mary a little chance as well as Martha!
I was doing the working-at-the-coffee-shop thing the other day. I was typing furiously away at my laptop, breathing the caffeine-saturated air and living vicariously through the secondhand aromas long after my own drink was gone.
All this was as I have described to you, when a troop of young men began to gather at a table near my spot. They each had one or more of the following: army or police-force stickers on their (Dell) laptops, navy blue cargo pants, emblems on their shirts, backpacks that they carried by the top handle and never the shoulder straps, and combat boots. The numbers continued to grow so that new tables were added onto the original table as the fellows arrived two-by-two. It was fascinating, really, and if I had actually retained some chemistry from high school, I would find some metaphor for how they clustered like atoms until a molecule was formed. I ceased to be amazed when I realized that they had pre-appointed this place for their meeting, and that one of the first ones to arrive was actually the man who was Sunday of the group (if you haven’t read Man Who Was Thursday, by GKC, well, proceed with my article and don’t confuse yourself about Sunday. He’s just the guy in charge).
The Man Who Was Sunday began to give them tips about adverbs and adjectives, then moved onto nouns and compound nouns, such as “corpse” and “jury.” Then he started reading test questions, and the other atoms seemed very confused when they had to define “arrest” and what type of “arrest” it was when a cop pulled someone over for speeding.
Suddenly, one of them pointed out the window at the line of cars in the drive through and said something that made a few of the guys laugh, and Sunday said, “Focus.” But as new cars came up and as the drivers (mostly female) faced the window to order their drinks, more and more of the guys in the molecular compound were distracted, until finally Sunday was craning his neck and joining the chatter.
“Oh hey, there’s a hot one!”
“Look at that one! Man!”
“No, this one’s the hottest one yet. Look at her!”
At first I thought they were pointing out cars they liked, but then I realized they were talking about the girls driving the cars.
The comments continued and their studies forgotten.
I became increasingly uncomfortable, and then incensed. There is something about guys comparing women’s external features that has always irked me. It’s as if they are comparing cattle. Their comparisons don’t take into account any of the things that truly matter, such as character, personality, or faith, but are completely based on the outside appearance. These girls were out for a day of shopping and decided to drive through Starbucks to pick up a drink, when suddenly they were unwittingly thrown onto a catwalk for ten young guys to assess them based on their hair color and style, their eyes and brow shape, their face shape, and their neck and shoulders. Thankfully the fact that they were seated in their cars kept them from full-body evaluations.
Hurriedly packing up my laptop and grabbing my coat, I left the building. I couldn’t sit there knowing what was going through these guys’ heads, even though I knew that as soon as I left, the subject of my own physique would probably be discussed as well.
Oh to have a monster mask handy! I wished I had bought one of those hideous things when they went on sale after Halloween. This would have been the perfect time to stick it over my head, get in my car, and go order a coffee at the drive through.
Guys, I know you’re visual. I get that. It’s one of the things that makes you so wonderfully different, so good at graphic design, architecture, photography, videography, art, industrial design, mechanics, problem solving, puzzles, inventing, etc. It’s also one of the characteristics that helps you decide who to marry, and that’s not a bad thing. It is not wrong for a man to think a woman is beautiful because of certain aesthetic elements. But please, please, please, don’t dishonor women by thinking of them merely as physical shapes and external features. And if you do think of them that way, please don’t talk about it or encourage it in others. I know that the pornography industry has made hay with this, so that a man can get pseudo-satisfaction for his visual nature without ever troubling to know the heart and mind and character of the women he looks at.
As I left that coffee shop frustrated—and actually angry (a rare emotion for me)—I knew it wasn’t because I envied those “hot” girls for the attention they were receiving as they were going through the drive through. It was because those girls had been treated like animals, or cars. They were being evaluated based entirely on something that they couldn’t change, something that no one but their Creator was responsible for giving them. Meanwhile, the elements that they had worked hard on—the paycheck that provided the $5 cappuchino, the heart that was passionate for the widow and orphan, the brain that was composing the next great movie theme song, the soul that was struggling to submit to God, or the hands that worked tirelessly to feed and clothe her toddlers—these elements were invisible.
The LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.
I hang on thee; I see, believe, live,
when thy will, not mine, is done;
I can plead nothing in myself
in regard of any worthiness and grace,
in regard of thy providence and promises,
but only thy good pleasure.
If thy mercy make me poor and vile, blessed be thou!
Prayers arising from my needs are preparations for future mercies;
Help me to honour thee by believing before I feel,
for great is the sin if I make feeling a cause of faith.
Show me what sins hide thee from me
and eclipse thy love;
Help me to humble myself for past evils,
to be resolved to walk with more care,
For if I do not walk holily before thee,
how can I be assured of my salvation?
It is the meek and humble who are shown thy covenant,
know thy will, are pardoned and healed,
who by faith depend and rest upon grace,
who are sanctified and quickened,
who evidence thy love.
Help me to pray in faith and so find thy will,
by leaning hard on thy rich free mercy,
by believing thou wilt give what thou hast promised;
Strengthen me to pray with the conviction
that whatever I receive is thy gift,
so that I may pray until prayer be granted;
Teach me to believe that all degrees of mercy arise
from several degrees of prayer,
that when faith is begun it is imperfect and must grow,
as chapped ground opens wider and wider until rain comes.
So shall I wait thy will, pray for it to be done,
and by thy grace become fully obedient.
(From The Valley of Vision, a Collection of Puritan Prayers & Devotions)
The events leading up to the Reformation in Geneva before Calvin’s arrival are wild—and so very medieval. As individual Swiss territories were evaluating Zwingli’s message of Reformation and voting on whether they would adopt it or not, a fire-headed evangelist by the name of William Farel took the reformation message into the far corners of Switzerland, and warmed the cool alpine climate with the crackling flames of the gospel. He was known for his passionate speeches, bold blatancy, and for leaving a piqued mob of papists behind him wherever he went. In fact, he was almost injured by an enraged throng of women who had taken his fiery gospel message as a personal attack, and they turned on him with an artillery of shoes, rocks, books, and whatever they could get their hands on. Once he threw an enraged priest into the lake; at another time, he was thrown into the lake.
Geneva’s Catholic women were a vicious bunch, and heartily involved in the fight to keep the Reformation out of Geneva. Sister Jeanne, a young nun from a convent in Geneva, scribbled a sprightly collection of stories about the cat-fights that her fellow nuns engaged in against both protestant ministers and protestant women. In one of these stories, the Catholics armed themselves against the Protestants, and both lined up, ready to fight if the other made a move.
The wives of the [Catholics] assembled, saying, that if it happens that our husbands fight against those infidels, et us also make war and kill their heretic wives, so that the race may be exterminated. In this assembly of women there were a good seven hundred children of twelve to fifteen years, firmly decided to do a good deed with their mothers: the women carried stones in their laps, and most of the children carried little rapiers… others stones in their breast, hat, and bonnet. (Jussie, Le Levain du Calvinisme, pp. 54-55; cf. pp.70-72, quoted in Jane Dempsey Douglass, “Women and the Continental Reformation,” p. 310-311)
As the day progressed, one Catholic man was mortally wounded. That was all the Catholic women needed to instigate their own war against the Protestant ladies. They ran after one Lutheran man’s wife and almost caught her, saying, “As the beginning of our war, let’s throw this b____ into the Rhone!” She slipped out of their grasp and made it into her home safely, but the Catholic women proceeded to tear everything out of her shop below her home. Meanwhile, the Catholic nuns were praying for the victory of the Catholic women, and prayed even more heartily after someone came and warned them that, if the Catholics lost, the nuns would be forced to get married. The day ended with very little more bloodshed, and the Catholics and Protestants agreed to live peaceably with each other for the time being. In all of this account, Sister Jeanne never depicted the Protestant women as being violent, and though it would have been easy for her to have embellished her colorful stories with more violence, she does not seem to have done so.
Other stories Sister Jeanne told are about various occasions when Lutheran women visited the Convent to preach and teach the nuns about the true gospel. According to Sister Jeanne, however, these women spewed “venom” and “detestable words,” and the nuns bolted and barred the door in their faces. Marie d’Entiere, a former abbess who was married, now occupied herself with “meddling with preaching, and perverting people of devotion.” According to Sister Jeanne, she said to the nuns,
O poor creatures! If only you knew that it is good to be with a handsome husband, and how agreeable it is to God. I lived for a long time in that darkness and hypocrisy where you are, but God alone made me understand the abuse of my pitiful life, and I came to the true light of truth… Thanks to God alone I have five handsome children, and I live salutarily. (Jussie, Le Levain du Calvinisme, p. 164, quoted in Jane Dempsey Douglass, “Women and the Continental Reformation,” in Religion and Sexism, p. 312)
As a sign of their rapt attention to these words, Sister Jeanne and her friends spit on Marie d’Entiere.
Sister Jeanne reported that other Protestant ladies who visited the convent to “meddle in preaching” to the nuns “perverted” Holy Scripture by giving a sermon on marriage in the early church, listing all the apostles who were married, and quoting Paul’s words on the two becoming one flesh. I will leave it up to you to judge whether this was really the sum total that these ladies had to say in their testimony of the gospel, or if this is merely what Sister Jeanne hated the most about these “sermons,” seeing as her entire life was dedicated to believing virginity was recommended by the Scriptures. Sister Jeanne’s entire view of the Protestant position seems to be that the Protestants despised the Sacrament, hated icons and pictures, and praised marriage. Protestant women protested Catholic feast days by doing their laundry and knitting in their front windows so that everyone on the street could see that they were working and not celebrating the feast. In spite of all this Protestant “witnessing” by women, only one nun sister was able to be convinced to leave the convent and join the Protestants. When Farel and Viret visited the convent, Sister Jeanne shrieked and howled that she was asked to leave the room. She continued to pound on the walls and put up such a successful filibuster that Farel forgot what he was going to say, and none of the nuns could have heard him over Sister Jeanne’s cacophony anyway.
Researchers remind us that, though Sister Jeanne’s journal was the result of a limited experience, it still provides an interesting picture of women during the Reformation—on both sides of the theological issues, but especially concerned by the doctrinal issues that were closest to home: virginity vs. marriage.
In late October a friend of mine told me about some quotes of Calvin’s she had read that seemed to point to him being a sexist male chauvinist. I went on a wild goose chase and hunted down these quotes and what people were saying about them, read some context surrounding his quotes, and have come back to my original conclusion. John Calvin was not a sexist male chauvinist. ‘Tis true. My own research, as well as the research done by many who have made a lifetime of studying this topic, declare otherwise. John Calvin haters will always hate, but if they actually carefully read what he wrote on women, they would find that he was no radical. His theology on women fits pretty well within the complementarian box, which was actually quite rare in his day. Calvin’s views on women were no different from the Apostle Paul’s. Woman was created from man, to be his helper, and thus holds an earthly rank that could be called inferior to the rank given to the man. But Calvin was careful to point out that spiritually, and in regards to the humanness of man and women, they are equal. Unlike many theologians before him who thought woman was the more “sinful” of the genders (Aquinas was one of these), Calvin points out example after example of how a woman’s uniquely-created gifts bless not only her husband and children, but also the entire world. She does not have to have the same ranking as her husband to be equally used of God for furthering His kingdom. I don’t have the space here to quote every example of this that I found in Calvin’s commentaries, but I am putting it all in my book.
Even an essay by Jane Dempsey Douglass in the book Religion and Sexism (not exactly the place I’d expect to find it) revealed that John Calvin had a beautifully biblical view of women and their role in the family, culture, and church. She describes the “new” theology that the Reformation taught, and proves how this theology elevated women and gave them more freedom than the previous medieval and Roman Catholic perspective. Several other researchers and writers agree with Douglass’s statement that:
“The protestant doctrines of Christian vocation and the priesthood of all believers, along with a new view of marriage, did in fact tend to change the image and role of women in the direction of greater personal freedom and responsibility, both immediately and over the centuries.” (p. 141 in Religion and Sexism)
The doctrine of Christian vocation placed equal honor on the work of the field-laborer, the merchant, the mother, and the housekeeper, as on the pastor or preacher. All vocations that are not outside of the law of God, are blessed of God, and holy when done to the glory of God. Therefore, the wife and mother who found herself entirely occupied by the tasks of “taking pains about housewifery, making clean her children when they be arrayed, killing fleas, and other such like,” as Calvin writes, is giving “sacrifices which God accepteth & receiveth, as if they were things of great price and honourable.” (A Sermon of Master John Calvin, upon the first Epistle of Paul, to Timothie, published for the benefit and edifying of the Church of God [London: G. Bishop and T. Woodcoke, 1579], excerpted from Calvin’s sermon on 1 Timothy 2:13-15)
The doctrine of the priesthood of all believers freed all women to have as deep a relationship with their Lord Jesus Christ as was previously only attributed to men and nuns. Calvin used many of the stories of women in the Bible to bring out rich and nourishing commentary designed to encourage women in their faith. He writes of the power of women’s prayers, of the beautiful honor of the resurrected Christ appearing first to the women, and then with almost breathless wonder, he describes the miraculous way that women have been gifted to defeat the effects sin by bringing children into the world. His practice was no different than his writing. In 1541 during Calvin’s time in Geneva, the city set up its first Protestant school for young girls. Calvin also was the one who suggested a change in the divorce law of the city so that women could initiate divorce proceedings as well as men (within the lawful biblical parameters for divorce, of course). The Protestant Reformation, and particularly the reformation in Switzerland, brought the first instance of women joining their voices with men during the congregational singing during church, and one refugee visitor to Calvin’s church described, with great pathos, the grandeur of “women and men singing together.”
The new view of marriage which Bucer, Luther, and many other reformers held, gave women a more hopeful perspective in the way they viewed themselves and their work. Previous to the reformation, women were considered to be the cause of lust. According to some church fathers, women were specially gifted with all the pleasing characteristics that caused good men to stumble. Therefore, righteous men who were not “gifted” with celibacy or could not take the vow of the monk, married to escape the sin of lust. Yet even then, marriage was “second best” because it allowed physical intercourse, and celibacy was the ideal, if it could be achieved. Virginity received special rewards in heaven, and women who could deny every womanly desire for a husband and children were the most revered.
After the Reformation, as many historians have pointed out, the new role of “pastor’s wife” was formed. Though she was not up front teaching, she was ministering to the congregation in her own womanly way. We see this in Idelette Calvin, who could take dictation for her husband in Latin when his secretary wasn’t available, and who visited sick beds with Calvin, and who helped Calvin to open their home to house and feed many wayfaring strangers.
In the summer of 1542, a few months after Idelette had arrived in Geneva as the new wife of John Calvin, a friend of Calvin’s lay dying. His name was Ami Porral, and he was the chief magistrate of the city, as well as the one who Calvin had consulted in drawing up the Ecclesiastical Ordinances the year before. Porral was the kind of man who loved to teach and exhort. Calvin visited him before his wife Idelette had a chance to, and they talked about salvation, the resurrection, and church unity.
Calvin recounted, “Whoever called to see him, heard some suitable exhortation; and that you may not suppose it to have been mere talkative vanity, as far as was possible he applied to each individual what was best adapted to his circumstances, and most likely to be of use to him.” Porral directed some extraordinary advice to Calvin and Viret, who visited his bedside each day that week. His advice nearly knocked them over.
Calvin says, “We were both of us in a sort of stupor of astonishment; and whenever it recurs to my memory, even yet I grow bewildered. For he spoke in such a way, that it seemed to reflect some discourse by one of ourselves after long and careful meditation… Thence he proceeded to exhort us both, as well regarding the other departments of our charge as ministers, as also to constancy and firmness; and when he discoursed at some length on the future difficulties of the ministers of the Gospel, he seemed inspired with the foresight of a prophet. It was wonderful how wisely he spoke to purpose on what concerned the public weal.” The tone of Calvin’s letter shows how sincerely he took to heart this strangely insightful advice from his dying friend. The “future difficulties of the ministers of the Gospel” were to be great indeed, and Calvin no doubt pondered Porral’s words in his heart for many years after.
The second afternoon, when Idelette was able to free herself from household duties, she joined her husband at Porral’s deathbed. Porral’s specific advice for Idelette penetrated her heart as well. Porral “told her to be of good courage whatever might happen, that she ought to consider that she had not been rashly led hither, but brought by the wonderful counsel of God, that she also might serve in the Gospel.”
That the dying man chose this topic to encourage Idelette is interesting, because it exposes that she may have been distressed about her move to Geneva and the role it would play in her life (or he may have thought as much, whether or not it was true). At this point, she was eight months pregnant with her third child, feeling like she might be coming down with the flu, still trying to navigate this strange and new city of Geneva, and finding the inhabitants not very welcoming to foreigners. To “be of good courage, whatever might happen,” was probably exactly what she needed to hear. Porral’s encouragement that “she also might serve in the Gospel” shows his desire for her to be a true helpmeet to Calvin, “also” serving Geneva by preaching the Gospel in her work alongside her husband.
Reading over this detailed account in Calvin’s letter, I am struck by how fully the Lord used this man’s dying words to prophetically address specific fears and weaknesses in both John and Idelette Calvin’s lives. John Calvin was young and timid, by his own admission, and shied away from public spectacle whenever he could. Yet here he was exhorted to “constancy and firmness” in every future difficulty that he must take on. Idelette was far away from the home, and family, and religion of her youth, and may well have felt “rashly led” to Geneva. But Porral’s exhortation was to consider that it was by the Lord’s providential counsel that she had been brought here, and that she should courageously serve in the Gospel.
Calvin and Idelette remained at his bedside the rest of the day until he could no longer speak. Since it was getting late, Calvin and Idelette started for home, walking slowly up the dark street, pondering together the unique charges they had been given to carry out. The next morning they found out that Porral had passed away. “Scarcely had we left,” Calvin writes, “when he gave up his pious soul to Christ.”
This summer I began to work through reading all of Calvin’s commentaries, particularly noting the sections in which he wrote about families, women, marriage, children, husbands, and fathers, and all the many ways they are intertwined. It has been incredibly rewarding. One of the major ideas so far has been that a marriage includes “all parts and usages of life” and it wasn’t established just for procreation of children. Calvin loved the Scriptural idea that God created a wife to be a man’s companion, so they could work alongside each other as if they were one and the same person, neither being inferior because both were created in God’s image.
“Christ is the head of man and woman without any distinction,” he said, and his view of women as equally faithful, intelligent, and spiritual followers of Christ made its way into numerous sermons and writings.
He plunged into the Hebrew of the phrase “meet for him” in the story of Eve’s creation, showing linguistically that the phrase expressed that the woman was “as if opposite to,” or “over against him… because she responds to him.” He continued,
“The Greek translators have faithfully rendered the sense, and Jerome, ‘Which may be like him,’ refuted the error of some, who think that the woman was formed only for the sake of propagation, and who restrict the word ‘good,’ which had lately been mentioned, to the production of offspring. They do not think that a wife was personally necessary for Adam, because he was hitherto free from lust; as if she had been given to him only for the companion of his chamber, and not rather that she might be the inseparable associate of his life.”
There was no place for man being the “spiritual” spouse, and women being the “practical” one, created to fulfill a man’s sexual needs, produce children, and manage the home. Though this was a common philosophy of the day and contains a bit of truth, the Scriptures—and Calvin—so obviously disagreed. A wife is the “inseparable associate of his life,” which must mean she is intelligent, companionable, talented, and fully able to come alongside or “across from” her husband to help him with his mission in life.
Part of this mission may be to cuddle in bed, carry his children, cook his meals, and teach his sons and daughters how to spell. But that should not at all detract from the understanding that her mission is to inseparably associate herself with every aspect of his life in which she can prove herself helpful, be it business accounting, back massages, writing letters and making phone calls, editing books, research and writing, understanding and being able to discuss the gospel, buying land, giving to charity, making decisions he would have made when he is absent, and in every way proving herself a help. She should truly be a crown that does not diminish the glory of God in her husband, but causes it to show the brighter. Those are my thoughts, but read Calvin. His opinion is what you really want to hear. It’s a long quote, but hopefully my (added) paragraph breaks will help you to process it! Here it is:
“Moses now explains the design of God in creating the woman; namely, that there should be human beings on the earth who might cultivate mutual society between themselves… Since it was not expedient for man to be alone, a wife must be created, who might be his helper. I… take the meaning to be this, that God begins, indeed, at the first step of human society, yet designs to include others, each in its proper place. The commencement therefore, involves a general principle, that man was formed to be a social animal…
Now, the human race could not exist without the woman; and, therefore, in the conjunction of human beings, that sacred bond is especially conspicuous, by which the husband and the wife are combined in one body, and one soul… But although God pronounced, concerning Adam, that it would not be profitable for him to be alone, yet I do not restrict the declaration to his person alone, but rather regard it as a common law of man’s vocation, so that everyone ought to receive it as said to himself, that solitude is not good, excepting only him whom God exempts as by a special privilege.
Many think that celibacy conduces to their advantage, and, therefore abstain from marriage, lest they should be miserable. Not only have heathen writers defined that to be a happy life which is passed without a wife, but the first book of Jermoe, against Jovinian, is stuffed with petulant reproaches, by which he attempts to render hallowed wedlock both hateful and infamous. To these wicked suggestions of Satan let the faithful learn to oppose this declaration of God, by which he ordains the conjugal life for man, not to his destruction, but to his salvation…
Now, since God assigns the woman as a help to the man, He not only prescribes to wives the rule of their vocation, to instruct them in their duty, but he also pronounces that marriage will really prove to men the best support of life.
We may therefore conclude, that the order of nature implies that the woman should be the helper of the man… The voice of God [is] to be heard, which declares that woman is given as a companion and an associate to the man, to assist him to live well. I confess, indeed that in this corrupt state of mankind, the blessing of God, which is here described, is neither perceived nor flourishes; but the cause of the evil must be considered, namely, that the order of nature, which God had appointed, has been inverted by us. For if the integrity of man had remained to this day such as it was from the beginning, that divine institution would be clearly discerned, and the sweetest harmony would reign in marriage; because the husband would look up with reverence to God; the woman would be a faithful assistant to him; and both, with one consent, would cultivate a holy, as well as friendly and peaceful [communication]. (from John Calvin’s commentary on Genesis 1)
I especially love this line: “The sweetest harmony would reign in marriage, because the husband would look up with reverence to God, and the woman would be a faithful assistant to him.”